Application Of Code Of Ethics
To Statutorily-Designated Member Of State Commission If Members Outside
Private Employer Contracts With State Commission

Chief
States Attorney Christopher L. Morano has asked how the Code of Ethics for Public
Officials, Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-79 et seq., applies to the following set of
facts.The Commission on the
Standardization of the Collection of Evidence in Sexual Assault Investigations
(Standardization Commission) is composed of thirteen statutorily-designated
members.Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-112a(a).One of these
designated members must be a member of the Connecticut
Sexual Assault Crisis Services, Inc. (CONNSACS), appointed by CONNSACS board
of directors.Currently, that Standardization
Commission position is held by CONNSACS executive director.According to ChiefStates Attorney Morano, CONNSACS is a statewide nonprofit association of
individual sexual assault crisis programs dedicated to responding to matters of
sexual violence through victim assistance, community education and public
policy advocacy.

The Standardization
Commissions major responsibility is to create and oversee a protocol for the
collection of sexual assault evidence at health care facilities.The Division of Criminal Justine is also
mandated by statute to bear all costs associated with these forensic
examinations.In order to implement this
latter duty, the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) has proposed that
CONNSACS be hired by the Standardization Commission to provide screening of the
bills submitted by the various health care facilities.The funding for the CONNSACS contract would
come from OPM, but the contract would be made with the Division of Criminal Justice,
through the Standardization Commission.The Standardization Commission is considered within the Division of
Criminal Justice for administrative purposes only.Id.

ChiefStates Attorney Morano has asked whether, under the Ethics Code, it is
appropriate for CONNSACS to contract with the Standardization Commission while
at the same time occupying a statutory
seat on that commission.The Ethics
Commission considered a very similar issue in Advisory Opinion No. 99-12, 61
Conn. Law J. No. 2, p. 5C (7/13/99).There, the Executive Director of the
Childrens Trust Fund asked how the Code of Ethics applied to members of the
Childrens Trust Fund Council, some of whom were designated by statute to serve
on the Council.The State Ethics Commission
stated:

The
enabling statute for the Council is similar to many of the enabling statutes
for various Connecticut
quasi-public agencies in that the statutory language specifies that its members
must have particular backgrounds and expertise.Unlike the quasi-public agency statutes, however, the Councils statute
does not contain an exemption from certain conflict of interest provisions of
the Code of Ethics. . . . Therefore, as public officials not otherwise exempt
from the application of the Code of Ethics, the Council members are subject to
all of the Codes conflict of interest sections.

The same
reasoning is true with regard to the application of the Ethics Code to the
Standardization Commission.If the
Standardization Commission is considering a contract with CONNSACS, the
CONNSACS executive director must abstain from any participation in the matter,
including discussions, votes or any other action.Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(c).Also, the Ethics Code prohibits a public
official from accepting outside employment that impairs his or her independence
of judgment as to his or her official duties.Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-84(b).Therefore, the CONNSACS
employee/Standardization Commission member must not vote or take other action
on matters affecting the interests of competitors of CONNSACS.

Finally, in
Advisory Opinion No. 99-12, the State Ethics Commission considered an additional
potential conflict of interest that may apply to the Standardization Commission
as well.Specifically, an issue may be
raised under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-84(b) and 1-84(c) if Standardization
Commission employees are required to oversee the CONNSACS contract when they
also have to answer to the CONNSACS executive director in his or her role as
one of their bosses on the Standardization Commission.Under the unique facts presented by ChiefStates Attorney Morano, there appear to be a number of ways to address this
potential problem.First, OPM could
oversee the contract with CONNSACs, or it could be
overseen by a Division of Criminal Justice employee who does not answer to the
Standardization Commission.In the
alternative, the CONNSACS employee/Standardization Commission member could
refrain from taking any actions with regard to Standardization Commission
personnel matters while CONNSACS is under contract with the commission.